Allahabad High Court
SUBHAN ALIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to a personal bond and specific conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Subhan Ali under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case arising from alleged violations of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, where a supply inspector seized 15 empty gas cylinders from his shop. The applicant argued that he had no criminal record, the cylinders were kept by neighbors for refilling, and that he was falsely implicated, seeking bail to avoid arrest while cooperating with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Mhetre, and Sushila Aggarwal) the Court evaluated the threat of arrest, the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s low flight risk and willingness to cooperate, and consequently granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions. The order also directed procedural compliance for future trial proceedings and maintenance of a bail register.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under the Essential Commodities Act where the accused claims false implication.
- Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 351, 438, 482
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Essential Commodities Act
- false implication
- flight risk
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4331 of 2026
Subhan Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Kumar Pandey, Kuvar Akhilesh
Singh, Prashant Kumar, Susheel Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused-
applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to
grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0048 of 2026, under Sections
3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S.- Sambhal, District- Sambhal.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the F.I.R.
has been lodged against the accused-applicant by the Supply Inspector
with the allegation that 15 empty gas cylinder of HP Company has been
seized from the shop of the accused-applicant. Further submits that the
accused-applicant has no criminal history. The persons of the vicinity
used to keep their empty cylinders in the shop for getting it refilled on
visit of hawkers. The accused-applicant has been falsely implicated under
the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. The investigation is
continuing. The accused-applicant wants to cooperate in the investigation,
but apprehending arrest and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant.
5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three
insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh
NABAIL No. 4331 of 2026
2
Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565,
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is
consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory
bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to
evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and
gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or
exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of
the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the
accused and flight risk.
6. This Court while considering the role of accused-applicant and further
considering the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the
case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating
with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory
bail.
7. The applicant- Subhan Ali involved in the aforesaid case crime shall
appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may
be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following
conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
NABAIL No. 4331 of 2026
3
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as
an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely
free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
10. The below mentioned directions shall be complied with for
expeditious disposal of trial; in case charge sheet is submitted against
accused/applicant.
10.1 As the investigation is continuing, in the event charge sheet is
submitted and cognizance is taken, it would be the duty of the
accused/applicants to appear before the trial court or Magistrate
concerned as the case may be without waiting for the issuance of
summons, within 60 days from the date of cognizance or on the date
fixed, which ever is earlier. So that the trial may not be delayed for non
execution of summons or processes.
10.2 The District Judge concerned shall direct each Magistrate and
Special courts to maintain a register of Anticipatory Bail orders granted
by this Court, wherein the details of Anticipatory Bail shall be entered.
The dedicated official shall be nominated in each Special court and
Magistrate court for maintaining the register.
10.3 The accused/applicant shall provide a copy of the final order of
anticipatory bail within 30 days, to the official concerned in whose
jurisdiction the case lies and shall provide his complete contact details
including the mobile number and E-mail ID (if maintained); any change
in detail shall be informed by the applicant.
10.4 On the submission of charge sheet and cognizance taken, the
NABAIL No. 4331 of 2026
4
Presiding Officer shall fetch the details of the accused/applicant and the
dedicated official shall inform the accused at the given detail.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shivangi
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…